Court : Karnataka
Medafa, C.J.1. The petitioner whose assessments for the assessment years 45-46, 46-47 and 48-49 were re-opened by the Income-tax Officer, Urban Circle, Bangalore under Section 34, Mysore Income-tax Act, has made these three applications to this Court under Arc, 226 of the Constitution. The history of these applications may briefly be stated as follows. The income of a firm called Rajmal Kapurchand & Company of which the petitioner claimed to be a partner was assessed under the Mysore Income-tax Act of 1923 lor the assessment years 45-46, 46-47, 47-48 and 48-49. The firm paid the taxes so determined. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore issued notices on 3-2-1949 and 14-12-49 to the Firm under Section 34, Mysore Income-tax Act for the purpose of assessing the income that had escaped assessment when the assessments were made as aforesaid.2. The petitioner states that the Deputy Commissioner made an order on 31-3-1950 adding a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the income of the Firm for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant99; AIR1955Mys99
Medapa, C.J.1. The Special Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bangalore started proceedings on 5-1-1954 against the petitioner, under Section 34, Income-tax Act for assessing, what was described as the escaped or under-assessed income chargeable to income-tax, during the assessment years 1945-46, 46-47, 47-48 and 48-49. The Income-tax Officer made his assessment for the year 1945-46. The assessments for the remaining periods were not completed. The petitioner contends that these proceedings are all without jurisdiction or authority and are liable to be quashed by the issue of appropriate writs under Article 226, Constitution of India.2. The financial integration of Mysore with the Union of India had come into effect, in pursuance of the recommendations of the committee known as the Indian States Finance Enquiry Committee, recorded in an agreement entered into between the Rajpramukh of Mysore and the President of India on 28-2-1950, that is to say, 3 years before the Income-tax Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. These are two petitions filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 24, Civil P. C. praying that O. S. 141/54 and 219/54 pending in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, may be 'transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mysore, to be tried along with O. S. Nos. 115 and 116/54 pending on the file of that Court. C. P. 10/55 relates to the transfer of O. S. 141/54 and C. P. 11/55 to the transfer of O. S. 219/54. The same point arises for decision in both these cases and therefore both of them will be covered by a common order,2. The allegations 'made in the application and affidavit in support of the transfer are that some of the issues in all these cases are identical, that all the hundies which are the subject-matter of these four suits were executed in Mysore that all the 15 hundies will have to be exhibited in each of the four cases, that the oral evidence that the defendant has to adduce is common to all the cases, that the defendant's witnesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant88; AIR1955Mys88
Vasudevamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff has brought a suit for partition by metes and bounds of the plaint schedule properties, which consist of three items with a view to ascertain the share therein of defendant 1 and to allot suit item 1 which is a house,, to the share of defendant 1, so that the plaintiff who has purchased the same from defendant 1 by a sale deed dated 6-7-1943 might get it. After that sale defendants 2 to 4 who were all then minors sued the plaintiff in O.S. No. 110/ 44-45 for a declaration that that alienation by defendant 1 their father was not binding on their three-fourths share in that item. That suit was decreed in their favour and then they filed a second suit O.S. No. 182-/47-48 for separation and delivery of possession of their share which had been so declared unaffected by the alienation. The plaintiff subsequently filed the present suit O.S. No. 72/48-49 for a general partition with a prayer as above. The Munsiff who heard the suit held that, the suit was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant107; AIR1955Mys107
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners (owners) against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in H.R.C. Appeal No. 37/54, reversing that of the learned First Munsiff and House Rent Controller, Bangalore, in H. R. C. No. 733/53, directing the eviction of the Respondent from the schedule premises.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as under:3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively and they are owners of a house bearing Municipal No. 15, situated in Kalappa Block in Basavangudi, Bangalore. The house consists of two portions--one ground floor and another upstairs. The respondent-defendant is a tenant in the downstairs and the petitioners are in occupation of the upstairs. The petitioners applied under Section 8(2)(vi) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 to the First Munsiff and House Rent and Accommodation Controller for eviction of the respondent on the ground that the spac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant113; AIR1955Mys113; 1955CriLJ1269
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners-accused 1 and 2 against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Chickmagalur in Cr.R.P. 8 of 1954, setting aside the order of the. learned Special Second Class Magistrate, Tarikere in C. C. 25/54 holding that sanction of Government to prosecute these petitioners was necessary under Section 197, Cr. P. C.2. The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly these:3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused 1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant in C. C. 25/54 on the file of the Special Second Class Magistrate, Tarikere. The complainant is a hotel-keeper at Kadur. The petitioners are President and Vice-president respectively of the Kadur Town Municipal Council. A-3 to A-10 are the employees in the said Municipality. Accused 11 and 12 are the Police Constables working at Kadur. The Respondent-complainant's petition was that on 16-5-1953 the said accused persons trespassed into his hotel and committed theft of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant81; AIR1955Mys81
Venkataramaiya, J.1. Two notifications dated 20th and 30th March1954 respectively and a Circular dated 11-5-1954issued by the Director of Public Instruction inMysore are attacked in this petition filed underArt. 226 of the Constitution of India as being unwarranted and unconstitutional. The notificationsprescribed the text books and copy books to be usedin all the Primary and Middle Schools of theState during the year 1954-55. Objection is takento the prescribing not of text books i.e., books tobe read and taught but of the Kannada CopyBooks described as. 'Adarsha Lipi Pusthaka'printed by Maruthi Book Depot, laying specialemphasis on the use of these by means of a'N. B.' in the notifications and enjoining Educa-tional Officers in the Circular to enforce the same.Of the two persons who have filed the petition,the first is a dealer in Kannada copy books, whoof course would be materially affected by hisbooks being excluded from use in schools duringthe year; the second petitioner is a Chr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant105; AIR1955Mys105
1. The petitioner has applied for a writ to quash an order of Government dated 4-2-1955 by which it declared that a vacancy had arisen consequent on the disqualification incurred by the petitioner to continue as Municipal Councillor of Mulabagal Town Municipal Council. In his affidavit accompanying the petition the petitioner has sworn that on account of some illwill and rivalry between himself and respondent 2, then President of the Town Municipal Council, Mulabagal, the latter had suppressed and had not placed before the Council a letter of his dated 6-2-1954 which he had sent through post applying for leave of absence from the meeting of the Council and that,, in those circumstances his absence from the meetings of the Municipal Council continuously for three months -- January, February and March 1954 -- would not entail his disqualification as contemplated by Section 14(2)(c) of the Town Municipalities Act. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, before whom an appeal was filed by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!